The voters have decided that Cheytuflya is right!
Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.
Related Posts
Also about Money & Economics
+136The thickness of your fingers directly affects the number of times you accidentally visit the App store. amirite?
Also about Money & Economics
+161AI will be so lucrative to the wealthy and powerful it will eradicate the notion of choice for the average person. amirite?
Also about Money & Economics
+132Super-glueing same sides of magnets on floor and roof of mouth can result into some serious torture, amirite?
There'd be a lot less farmed animals, and thus a lot, lot more wild animals - enough to fill a space the size of Australia, US, EU and China combined apparently.
Buuuut definitely fewer total animals. There's no way nature can compete with the sheer number of bodies a ranch can shove into a shed
I mean, how much does livestock raising really hamper ants' ability to live in an area though?
Humans account for 36% of the biomass of mammals on Earth.
Livestock account for 60% of the biomass of mammals on Earth.
Wildlife accounts for 4% of the biomass of mammals on Earth.
With less livestock there would probably be more wild animals.
Yea but the increase in wild animals probably wouldn't match the decrease in livestock considering it's 60% of the worlds biomass
That biomass has to go somewhere. If it's not into wild mammals it'll be wild birds, insect, reptiles...
no, theres just less total biomass
yes, percentage wise it would be more wildlife, but it wouldnt actually be more
What would we do with all of the cows, pigs , chickens etc if everyone went vegan?
What do you think happens to them now? If the world went vegan we wouldn't be breeding more into existence. They don't produce children by chance. We artificially inseminate them when we want to eat more.
So, we would control their population by breeding. Why would someone take care of them? Would we turn them lose into nature?
Exactly, they wouldn't be bvred for food so they'd have to live wild in much smaller numbers.
Some land that is used for livestock farming would have more (and especially more diverse) animals in them though...
Probably not more (though more biodiversity is a given). The free market is bad at many things, but it's GREAT at maximizing production (and by extension profit) per amount of land
Between rodents and birds it's entirely possible there would be more animals
I dont know man. A pig farm will cram them in like 5 square feet or so apiece. That's going to be pretty damn hard for anything but insects to match.
Insects alone would win the quantity calc
I don't see how, near me is a field of cows and it's regularly filled with birds but a nearby arable farm has bird scorers that keep out birds and probably a few other animals. If every farm becomes and arable farm farmers will be doing all they can to keep pests out but in livestock farming as long as their is grass it doesn't matter what other animals share the fields (unless it's badgers of course as farmers are massive anti-vaxxers).
I think it's because we'd need less land to grow the crops needed to feed the population. For example, about 75% of current soy production is to feed livestock.
provided the land wasn't used for something else, yea
Food would be a lot cheaper and significantly more plentiful
Fewer
Calm down there, Stannis.
the world is more beautiful without human too
There would be issues, such as over farming of certain crops
Fewer, not less.